In general, the proposal looks good. In general, I like the “focus on driving mass adoption of NEM technology.” More specifically though, and granted I’m not sure how all parties work together and how realistic this point of view is, I find that some of the projects (in general, not NEM Labs per se) showcased as an example of success don’t mention NEM in their (PoC) products, apps or websites to the end user.

I would like to see some guidelines that anything sponsored by community funds needs to prominently show NEM branding/logos with a backlink, or something like “Funded by NEM” similar to those “Funded by” or “Co-funded by the European Union” signs you see at buildings and structures throughout Europe. Perhaps teams that seek consulting can be incentivized to do this. If the partner program needs funding, I assume there is a benefit to its partners, and they can return the favor by more prominently showing the NEM logo as a badge of honor.

After all, this is a very important part of marketing. Again, not sure if this is exactly the right place, but I would feel better if some clever words and intentions were said about marketing plans separate from a single line in the budget summary. Brand awareness - beyond awareness for the developers that don’t mention technologies used in their customer facing end-product - is very much in the communities’ interest.

PS - I did this twice now: When I google NEM Labs I end up here. Anyone else had this problem?

In general, the proposal looks good. In general, I like the “focus on driving mass adoption of NEM technology.” More specifically though, and granted I’m not sure how all parties work together and how realistic this point of view is, I find that some of the projects (in general, not NEM Labs per se) showcased as an example of success don’t mention NEM in their (PoC) products, apps or websites to the end user.

I agree with you that community funded entities should be proud to carry the brand. Right now we have the PMC for technical steering but I’m confident that we will set up strategic meetings with other community funded entities to discuss branding guidelines.

For NEMsp, we already have a strategy how partners will carry the brand in a unified way. However, we cannot force them to brand every POC because we do not fund those POCs (their own customers pay for them). In my opinion, that is where we need to draw the line. Project (including subprojects) funded by NEM community funds should carry the brand. Projects completed by the ecosystem are free to use the brand but do not have to. We can only set guidelines on brand usage.

PS - I did this twice now: When I google NEM Labs I end up here. Anyone else had this problem?

Our NEM Labs brand does not exist yet. We are only able to create and nurture it once we are funded

TINLA, but just make sure you don’t have to re-brand later. NEM Labs is a privately held company and the word “NEM Laboratories” is trademarked in India under application number 3827273.
As far as I know they operate in a completely different field, but IANAL.

I agree and we will do the required due diligence after funding before we settle on a final brand name.

After careful consideration, NEM Foundation and NEM Labs would like to affirm the below statements:

1. Proposals are both complementary in nature

Both parties jointly acknowledge that the proposals put forth to the community are complementary in nature. The proposals can be accomplished in such a way that it improves the outcomes that are being sought after - the development, launch and adoption of Catapult.

2. Principles of co-operation collaboration

Both parties will work as independent contributors to the ecosystem but in a unified approach. This means that if both proposals are approved, the main commitment is to contribute to the Project Management Committee (PMC). As an additional measure, there will be regular joint strategic meetings in working towards full alignment across both entities to prevent ineffective use of resources. In fact, the execution of each party’s proposal will lead to an enhancement of each other’s effort through the principles of cooperation and collaboration.

3. Pursuit of Catapult

Both parties have their own scope, though we will be working towards the same objective - a promise to the community that our mission-critical priority is in the launch of Catapult. Both NEM Foundation and NEM Labs will work together to accomplish this as part of the same ecosystem.

Summary

The past days have shown that the NEM community demands purpose driven entities that can deliver results in a cost-effective way. Both NEM Foundation and NEM Labs have different scopes that complement each other. The reality is that the adoption of NEM is not the work of a single entity. Proven ecosystems all consist of multiple purpose driven entities that solve specific problems. We are convinced of a future where independent entities like NEM Foundation and NEM Labs solve specific problems for the NEM ecosystem in a unified approach.

We appreciate that the community review the proposals and vote in an informed manner:

Would the NEM Labs entity dilute the Catapult focused work that the NEM Foundation is doing? i.e. would the foundation be less focused on Catapult then if both proposals were approved?

Both NEM Foundation and NEM Labs have different scopes and solves different problems for Catapult development and Catapult adoption. We had a 1,5 hours meeting between NF and NL yesterday to reaffirm this cooperative approach.

Dear @gimer, we understand this concern and want to address it accordingly.

From a management perspective, it was important for us to take some things into consideration.
It is important that we are able to pay suppliers and staff based on the requirements related to our business plan.

Already being in a position where we are not guaranteed to have funds for more than a year is a position that has potential consequences. It means we cannot offer a (long term) stable working environment for staff.

This is something can have a negative effect on staff retention and it will affect recruiting talent.

So from our perspective it is not about the amount of XEM, it is mainly about ensuring budgetary requirements can be fulfilled.

I’m sure Kristof and his team will give you better answers today, so not to give any spoilers I’ve sent a PM to you here.

As soon as I saw your question I wanted to post an explanation of your questions to those who have lousy math grades with simple calculations and just a bit of FA/TA on BTC & XEM with probabilities of worst case scenarios. As there is enough FUD in here, on Telegram and even in mainstream media, instead I’ve got in touch with both Jeff and Kristof trying to once again explain to them that from your perspective both proposals and especially their joint statement are not just gambling, it’s the worst form of Russian roulette. They both do understand that as it seems. We all know those who are active full-time senior devs, who are contributing to Catapult. I agreed to go for elections as VP only to make sure that we change everything and give control back to the community, so whenever it’s needed, we can fire all those who had control and are so afraid to lose their job. POI vote didn’t help; we still can’t fire all those whose salaries will be the reason for NEM death in case we get into worst case scenario.

we still can’t fire all those whose salaries will be the reason for NEM death in case we get into worst case scenario.

We?
The worst case scenario will be if the community will not approve the proposals.
Investors will lose faith and some people will sell. Media will destroy us with more fud talking about the real bankrupt of NF and XEM price will go close to 0.
And then the community and the core devs will have to figure it out how to survive after that.